There was a time when
union supporters in this state were strong and confident sorts who were not
easily deterred. As the old song went: "When the union’s inspiration through the
workers blood shall run, there can be no power greater anywhere beneath the
sun." Michigan unionists were the ones who took over a GM plant in Flint and
occupied it until the company relented and recognized the UAW. One could
question the legitimacy of that action, but there’s no denying that the men who
did it believed in the union cause.

Nowadays it seems that
union supporters are a bit more easily spooked. Otherwise there would be no need
for legislation like the Worker Freedom Act in the Michigan Legislature.

Under guidelines set
up by the National Labor Relations Board, prior to a unionization vote employers
are permitted to require employees to attend meetings where the employer can
make its case for rejecting union representation. The meetings must be held
during regular work time, and employees must be paid for the time. During these
"captive audience" meetings the employer must still avoid making threats or
promises, and must also avoid improper interrogation. Along with these legal
limits there are some practical limitations as well: too many meetings will
disrupt operations, an overly long presentation will cost money, a dull lecture
will persuade nobody, and harsh conditions (too long, too dull, no bathroom
breaks) will only breed resentment.

House Bill 4316 would effectively prohibit captive audience meetings in
Michigan, a prohibition which would put the state on a collision course with the
NLRB, which governs private-sector labor relations.

There are reasonable
grounds to question the wisdom of the captive audience meeting. One might wonder
what an employer would gain from having an employee sit through a meeting when
he has no interest in anything that might be said. But the captive audience
meeting exists for a reason. In the run up to a vote, the employer cannot reach
out beyond the workplace to get its message to workers, while the union can
contact workers outside of the workplace and sometimes within the workplace as
well. The captive audience meeting evens things up a bit by ensuring that the
employer will have a chance to explain his or her point of view.

The need to prevent
workers from hearing anti-union messages seems odd in the light of Michigan’s
history of strong union support. One might wonder how union support among
workers has weakened to the point where it could wilt after a few lectures from
the boss. But the disconnect between union officials and workers has been
growing for some time. Union membership as a percentage of the workforce has
been dropping for decades, and clear majorities of union members oppose union
officials on a range of issues, including the current union drive for card-check
certification.

If this act were
passed — it has already made it out of the House Labor Committee — it would do
little to aid the state’s declining unions in the longer term. The federal
courts are virtually guaranteed to knock it down. One may question the decision
to allow captive audience meetings, but the fact remains that employers are
allowed to hold them under the rulings of the National Labor Relations Board,
whose authority over labor relations trumps state law. It might not even help
that much in the short term; the NLRB is very likely to ask for and get an
injunction preventing the state from enforcing this law until the courts make a
final decision.

But passage of this
bill would certainly signal to employers that the state’s lawmakers are
determined to protect unions by any method possible, fair or foul, wise or
ill-advised. And the legal process of having the law overturned could drag on
for months or even years. During that time uncertainty over the lawsuit might
make employers even more wary about locating in Michigan.

Paul Kersey is senior labor policy analyst at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a research and educational institute headquartered in Midland, Mich. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is hereby granted, provided that the author and the Center are properly cited.